It didn't look like this man was out of line or disruptive with his efforts to ask his question. Like you, I am not a 9/11 conspiracy believer, but when someone runs for President they know that they are signing on to answer everyone's questions.

I have seen both John and Elizabeth Edwards patiently try to answer questions that are just as unpleasant as this one. As long as the person with the question is not disruptive, they get an answer to their question.

Actually, John Edwards uses tough questions as an opportunity to set the record straight with people. His goal is to be understood by everyone, not to control everyone!

The Guiliani squad tactics says it all.  Thanks to Youtube, it is becoming more difficult to surpress freedom of speech.  Of course, main stream media will never show this video.

What can you say about Republican leadership, except that it sucks. The VP can say the f word on the public airways, and can have someone arrested for saying, 'Your policies in Iraq are reprehensible.'

We have a problem that Giuliani sure isn't going to fix.

10.3.06. A close encounter with Cheney.

Ok, I watched this twice, and my general impression is that Lapacek was pretty obnoxious. Although I don't think an actual arrest was warranted, I wouldn't call this as a denial of free speech either.

Even if he had a press pass, Lapacek's  "license" to be on the premises can be revoked if he violates the terms and conditions of the license, which could reasonably include some kind of no-harrassment/antagonism rule.

The ultimate question is whether the arrest was made as a result of the content of his speech or, instead, as a result of the time, place, manner in which the speech was made. I think a decent case can be made that the arrest was content neutral. Lapacek  was pushy and didn't genuinely seem interested in a Q&A. His questions, from what I can tell, were loaded as hell and meant to antagonize. The venue has a right to exclude antagonists, although he is certainly free to yell antagonistic remarks in a more public context (e.g., from the street).

Anyway, I'd love to bash the Rudy folks, but I don't have much sympathy for Lapacek here. In my view, the First Amendment's underlying justification derives from the fact that a government disregards the autonomy of citizens by prejudging the truth/value of expression. (Adult) Citizens, as rational agents, are entitled to make that determination without the help of government--and are entitle to ignore certain expression as well (The philosopher T.M. Scanlon actually has the best justification of free expression, IMO). Lapacek didn't like being ignored and that's when he's seems to have gotten into trouble. And, regardless, it's not like anyone is going to be persuaded by that approach. It's just a waste.

Again, though, no need for an arrest. Just escort him out the door. I do love that this stuff makes it to tape, though. Youtube is the best thing since . . . Atari?

It sounded like the arrest for for trespassing. But,  even though he was obviously trying to be aggressive, I don't see the need for the arrest.

Just, pull the press pass/credentials and tell him to leave.  Arrest - is a bit much!

As far as Freedom of speech, to me the arrest on something like this is saying to anyone else who may want a question asked that it better well be one they plan on answering or don't bother asking it, you may be arrested.

That is a stretch. The "crime" here was tenaciously asking an unwelcome question after a presidential debate.  When it became clear that the question was not going to be answered, I suppose the continued questions became a form of protest, but to then allege trespass without first warning that permission to be present had been revoked just won't fly.

I would say that this has a chilling effect on free speech.  We want our citizen journalists to be intrepid where professional journalists have forgotten how.  

A test case on freedom of speech and citizen journalism is probably inevitable.  I guess then we will see how free this country still is.